General Baseball Chit-Chat Thread

[weis21]

 

You're still getting the game old man.

I'll be dead before I log on to Facebook, sonny boy.

 

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/019/304/old.jpg

the ironic part of this is that no young people even use and/or care about facebook anymore

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, I'm old and lame as horsefeathers and there's no way I'm giving up Facebook. What I need to actually keep in touch with people outside of likes and pithy comments? Get the horsefeathers out of here.

[weis21]

maybe it's a personal situation bc of my situation but giving up facebook is actually one of the better decisions i've made in the past few years. i've missed it literally none. there were a few days after i gave it up when i would pick up my phone and then realize the app wasn't there but that was it.

 

it was basically this before i gave it up:

 

*scrolls through feed*'

 

-don't care

-don't care

-that's racist

-don't care

-that just makes me jealous of you

-don't care

-that's REALLY racist and now i don't like you

-don't care

 

it just got so draining and i realized that if i cared about sharing anything with anyone then i would do that personally. i love twitter and it's also a platform in which my boss or other people of that accord don't follow me. not that i'm tweeting anything that would be volatile or anything but i like a bit of privacy if i'm posting anything online.

 

but that's just my situation i suppose. it's not like i judge people for being on it still - just was a good call on my part imo

[Sammy Sofa]

Every time I see someone complaining about the deluge of crap on their feed I kinda can't help but think, "damn, just exercise a little quality control. It's REALLY easy to not friend or like shitty things/people and to set privacy settings."

[Banedon]

Yeah, I'm old and lame as horsefeathers and there's no way I'm giving up Facebook. What I need to actually keep in touch with people outside of likes and pithy comments? Get the horsefeathers out of here.

 

Yep, I'm old and I absolutely despise Facebook and there's no way that I can give it up because of my extended family using it as basically a scrapbook of their lives.

 

It's the worst though.

 

Every time I see someone complaining about the deluge of crap on their feed I kinda can't help but think, "damn, just exercise a little quality control. It's REALLY easy to not friend or like horsefeathers things/people and to set privacy settings."

 

The problem is when those shitty people are family.

[bukie]

I get many uses of Twitter, but privacy is not one of them.

[Banedon]

I get many uses of Twitter, but privacy is not one of them.

 

It is if you don't disclose your identity, or follow anyone you know in real life, which I think is his point.

[Derwood]

My friends list on Facebook is under 200, and could easily be under 100 if I removed people that don't really annoy me but who I also don't know very well. When I see people with 3,000 friends on their list, I don't know how they stay sane

[Sammy Sofa]

Every time I see someone complaining about the deluge of crap on their feed I kinda can't help but think, "damn, just exercise a little quality control. It's REALLY easy to not friend or like horsefeathers things/people and to set privacy settings."

 

The problem is when those horsefeathers people are family.

 

Hell no. You can just remove their horsefeathers from ever showing up on your timeline if you don't want to make unfriending them or not even friending them in the first place a thing; I'm not letting shitty family ruin the easiest way I can keep in touch with people. I basically moved every 2-3 years, often to a different country, my whole life until I was 30; FB is perfect for being able to keep contact with the people I want to from all of that.

[cl smooth]

just hide people whose posts you don’t want to see. most of my family is hidden not due to political posts but more of the posts about “have you seen this missing child?” or posts about how much they love their children. i love my nieces and nephews but i’m not posting about them 3-4 times a day.

[Sammy Sofa]

just hide people whose posts you don’t want to see. most of my family is hidden not due to political posts but more of the posts about “have you seen this missing child?” or posts about how much they love their children. i love my nieces and nephews but i’m not posting about them 3-4 times a day.

 

Yup. I mean, I can get it if someone doesn't use or stops using FB because they're a shitty company run by a power-hungry robot with ill-fitting human skin and I gigantic hypocrite who keeps using it, but when people wail that they did it or want to do it like they have zero control over the deluge of awful or annoying horsefeathers showing up in their feed it just sounds...lazy. Only add the people you want to actually communicate with and hide/mute the people you feel obligated to accept a friend invite from but what nothing to do with. Like, nobody is forcing you to put up with this stuff.

[Derwood]

FB has a nifty "snooze" feature that lets you mute someone for 30 days. It's handy to determine if you will actually miss that person being in your feed or not. When they pop back into your feed, is it a happy addition or an annoyance? (SPOILER: it's usually an annoyance)

[Omar]

facebook should have a snooze feature for turning off posts from a page your friend of a friend liked from 3 years ago

[weis21]

Every time I see someone complaining about the deluge of crap on their feed I kinda can't help but think, "damn, just exercise a little quality control. It's REALLY easy to not friend or like horsefeathers things/people and to set privacy settings."

 

The problem is when those horsefeathers people are family.

 

Hell no. You can just remove their horsefeathers from ever showing up on your timeline if you don't want to make unfriending them or not even friending them in the first place a thing; I'm not letting horsefeathers family ruin the easiest way I can keep in touch with people. I basically moved every 2-3 years, often to a different country, my whole life until I was 30; FB is perfect for being able to keep contact with the people I want to from all of that.

i get that it's still quite useful and a great platform for people to stay in touch and many people still like it and use it and that's awesome. i've not bashed anyone for still wanting to use it - i get it.

 

i also get that it is not complicated to mute or unfriend or snooze or whatever may be the case for some people.

 

my issue is 1)i'd be doing that for a LOT of people (greenville is certainly more blue as it's a college town - my hometown in NC is...not) and 2)i just genuinely don't care that much most of the time

 

maybe that makes me a jerk or something (not ruling that out) but i stay in touch (almost daily or weekly) with much of my family and friends through texting or calling or snapchat or whatever. the people i care about i pretty much know what's going on.

 

and yes, brandon is right that i follow very few people i know in real life on twitter. it's mainly sports and politics and such (and david, duh). i mainly just use it to get news and things that make me laugh and i generally just have some sort of sarcastic humor tweet i'll fire off every now and then (nothing controversial, though). to me it's just a completely different experience and one that i prefer far more than FB.

 

ETA: hurry up opening day if for no other reason than to distract mojo from hot topics like "why someone who doesn't prefer to use facebook anymore should actually not feel that way because reasons"

[OleMissCub]

They look thrilled

 

https://instagram.com/p/Bf9VZXGlHLh/

[Clem Fandango]

[cl smooth]

if the player with the highest WAR in their respective league won the MVP award, who would have the most in their career? curious if fangraphs or 538 ever produced an article about this topic. for example, bonds would lose out on at least two mvp awards ('92 and '93 awards to greg maddux and jose rijo, respectively).

[OleMissCub]

if the player with the highest WAR in their respective league won the MVP award, who would have the most in their career? curious if fangraphs or 538 ever produced an article about this topic. for example, bonds would lose out on at least two mvp awards ('92 and '93 awards to greg maddux and jose rijo, respectively).

 

Post 1900, for the people with 3 or more, it would be:

 

Babe Ruth - 10

Willie Mays - 9

Walter Johnson - 7

Rogers Hornsby - 7

Ted Williams - 6

Barry Bonds - 6

Mickey Mantle - 5

Pete Alexander - 5

A- Rod - 5

Mike Trout - 5

Honus Wagner - 4

Stan Musial - 4

Roger Clemens - 4

Albert Pujols - 4

Cy Young - 3

Christy Mathewson - 3

Bob Gibson - 3

Carl Yaz - 3

Cal Ripken - 3

Greg Maddux - 3

 

If you did it irrespective of league and just went with overall MLB lead:

 

Ruth - 7

Mays - 7

Johnson - 6

Hornsby - 4

Mantle - 4

Williams - 4

Bonds - 4

Wagner - 3

Gibson - 3

Ripken - 3

Clemens - 3

Maddux - 3

Trout - 3

Edited March 15, 2018 by OleMissCub

[Clem Fandango]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Regular Show]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

That is not something I want to see. If it stays confined to the minors it's fine I guess. I don't like it, but whatever.

 

Now that said they better not horsefeathering consider it as an option for MLB games that go into extra-innings...

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's one of those things that we'll probably get used to and not care about, like the DH or interleague games or whatever.

 

But for right now it sounds stupid.

[Cubswin11]

It would be dumb if ever brought to MLB, but who gives a horsefeathers about MiLB game outcomes?

[Bluescale]

if the player with the highest WAR in their respective league won the MVP award, who would have the most in their career? curious if fangraphs or 538 ever produced an article about this topic. for example, bonds would lose out on at least two mvp awards ('92 and '93 awards to greg maddux and jose rijo, respectively).

 

Post 1900, for the people with 3 or more, it would be:

 

Babe Ruth - 10

Willie Mays - 9

Walter Johnson - 7

Rogers Hornsby - 7

Ted Williams - 6

Mickey Mantle - 5

Pete Alexander - 5

A- Rod - 5

Mike Trout - 5

Honus Wagner - 4

Stan Musial - 4

Roger Clemens - 4

Albert Pujols - 4

Cy Young - 3

Christy Mathewson - 3

Bob Gibson - 3

Carl Yaz - 3

Cal Ripken - 3

Greg Maddux - 3

 

If you did it irrespective of league and just went with overall MLB lead:

 

Ruth - 7

Mays - 7

Johnson - 6

Hornsby - 4

Mantle - 4

Williams - 4

Bonds - 4

Wagner - 3

Gibson - 3

Ripken - 3

Clemens - 3

Maddux - 3

Trout - 3

 

Maybe I don't understand the top list, but how does Bonds lead MLB in WAR 4 times (per the second list), and not crack the top list? Shouldn't he have *at least* 4 in the top list?

[Banedon]

The starting with a runner on 2nd base idea is terrible.

 

If they ABSOLUTELY HAVE to change something in extra innings, just let the manager choose where to start the batting order at the top of each inning in extras.

[weis21]

The starting with a runner on 2nd base idea is terrible.

 

If they ABSOLUTELY HAVE to change something in extra innings, just let the manager choose where to start the batting order at the top of each inning in extras.

i generally agree with all here with this.

 

but why does the runner start at second? why not first? that way a conservative (but probably smart) "bunt and medium depth fly ball" route is not the outcome to many games. if they are trying to make the game more exciting that's counterproductive.